Dygz wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The system is almost a copy of L2's with some changes to fix what he saw were issues with its system. If you want a comparison, it's going to be like L2. Why are you asking if it's going to be like other games when there is one it's copying? 1: Most of the Lead devs from 2017-2021 came from SOE/Daybreak/EQ/EQ2. And it seemed likely they would want to retain the MMORPG players who play on EQ/EQ2 PvE-Only servers but are OK with some PvP. I'm not aware of Steven hiring devs who worked on Lineage 2. 2: The Node system seemed to me to be a simplified version of EQNext’s StoryBricks. And with so many IS devs from SOE/Daybreak/EQ/EQ2, again, it seemed likely they would want to retain the MMORPG players who play on EQ/EQ2 PvE-Only servers but are OK with some PvP and who were interested in EQNext. 3: On the EQNext Forums, we never learned what the plan was to get PvPers and PvEers to be content playing on the same servers before EQNext became vaporware. Steven’s answer was that Corruption should work because it is a harsher form of Karma. 4: I don't think I've ever heard Steven or anyone else reference L2 when discussing Nodes or Sieges. When L2 gamers discuss L2 in relation to Ashes, it is typically comparing Corruption to Karma. 5: I think Liniker is correct in saying that Steven referenced EvE and ArcheAge enough in 2017 and early 2018 for me to wonder if Ashes is intended to be as PvP-centric as those games. Again... the only thing I know about L2 is that L2 players say that Corruption is harsher than Karma and Karma worked well enough to curtail PKing in L2 that PvP should feel comfortable for any player doesn't hate PvP so much they never want to experience PvP. I know that EvE and ArcheAge are too PvP-centric for me. Which is why I asked for a comparison for the games I know something about. But, notice the first question I asked was for Steven to name some games that are a "murderbox" (his term). He said that sometimes Lineage could be a murderbox, but Ashes should not be as much of a murderbox as L2 due to Corruption. 6: Steven has never said, AFAIK, "Ashes is basically just a copy of L2. We are making Ashes for the gamers who loved L2, just Corruption is a bit harsher. If you didn't like the adrenaline rush of L2, you probably won't like Risk v Reward of Ashes." 7: I was not asking Steven to compare systems. I was asking Steven to compare how prevalent PvP was expected to be. Yes. What he provided is the answer to what L2 gamers considered to be the problem with PvP in L2 - too much PKing. But I did not ask Steven to compare the amount of PKing in Ashes with the amount of PKing in EvE and ArcheAge and L2.
mcstackerson wrote: » The system is almost a copy of L2's with some changes to fix what he saw were issues with its system. If you want a comparison, it's going to be like L2. Why are you asking if it's going to be like other games when there is one it's copying?
Mag7spy wrote: » https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=41&q=forza+devs+making+fable&cvid=05c136d5bc094f2eb21a675a6f359d8a&aqs=edge..69i57.2854j0j1&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=41&q=forza+devs+making+fable&cvid=05c136d5bc094f2eb21a675a6f359d8a&aqs=edge..69i57.2854j0j1&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531 Truly we are in the darkest timeline.
Azherae wrote: » Truly we are in the darkest timeline.
Azherae wrote: » "On the other hand it is a little curious to get rid of the team that is uniquely expert in making Fable, and then try and make Fable. Fable is a weird game, and a tough one to deconstruct for a new team. That said, the team in question is very talented, and I'm sure they'll do a fantastic job." From the article. Microsoft does this often. It has gone well precisely once, and that was debatable. My hot take here is therefore 'RIP Fable'.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » "On the other hand it is a little curious to get rid of the team that is uniquely expert in making Fable, and then try and make Fable. Fable is a weird game, and a tough one to deconstruct for a new team. That said, the team in question is very talented, and I'm sure they'll do a fantastic job." From the article. Microsoft does this often. It has gone well precisely once, and that was debatable. My hot take here is therefore 'RIP Fable'. Im not even trying to talk about fable i was just suing it as an example lmao. Im guessing the game was close to your heart when you were younger?
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » "On the other hand it is a little curious to get rid of the team that is uniquely expert in making Fable, and then try and make Fable. Fable is a weird game, and a tough one to deconstruct for a new team. That said, the team in question is very talented, and I'm sure they'll do a fantastic job." From the article. Microsoft does this often. It has gone well precisely once, and that was debatable. My hot take here is therefore 'RIP Fable'. Im not even trying to talk about fable i was just suing it as an example lmao. Im guessing the game was close to your heart when you were younger? You guess a lot. If you haven't realized by now, I study games. I study them very hard. I ask that you try to consider that when talking to me, if possible. It may help you to not make unnecessary assumptions about my feelings or reasonings. Assuming you care, that is.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » "On the other hand it is a little curious to get rid of the team that is uniquely expert in making Fable, and then try and make Fable. Fable is a weird game, and a tough one to deconstruct for a new team. That said, the team in question is very talented, and I'm sure they'll do a fantastic job." From the article. Microsoft does this often. It has gone well precisely once, and that was debatable. My hot take here is therefore 'RIP Fable'. Im not even trying to talk about fable i was just suing it as an example lmao. Im guessing the game was close to your heart when you were younger? You guess a lot. If you haven't realized by now, I study games. I study them very hard. I ask that you try to consider that when talking to me, if possible. It may help you to not make unnecessary assumptions about my feelings or reasonings. Assuming you care, that is. Have you played fable, what ones did you play. Did you enjoy the gameplay, did your enjoy the story. Were you younger when you played the game, or did you only play it later? Everyone makes assumptions in appearance, in emotion, in words. That should not be a surprise, we have our thoughts with out outlook. Through disccusion things become more clear. So i will still have my assumptions when interaction with people, does not mean I'm going to stick to them no matter what, as they will grow and change through talking / interaction.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » "On the other hand it is a little curious to get rid of the team that is uniquely expert in making Fable, and then try and make Fable. Fable is a weird game, and a tough one to deconstruct for a new team. That said, the team in question is very talented, and I'm sure they'll do a fantastic job." From the article. Microsoft does this often. It has gone well precisely once, and that was debatable. My hot take here is therefore 'RIP Fable'. Im not even trying to talk about fable i was just suing it as an example lmao. Im guessing the game was close to your heart when you were younger? You guess a lot. If you haven't realized by now, I study games. I study them very hard. I ask that you try to consider that when talking to me, if possible. It may help you to not make unnecessary assumptions about my feelings or reasonings. Assuming you care, that is. Have you played fable, what ones did you play. Did you enjoy the gameplay, did your enjoy the story. Were you younger when you played the game, or did you only play it later? Everyone makes assumptions in appearance, in emotion, in words. That should not be a surprise, we have our thoughts with out outlook. Through disccusion things become more clear. So i will still have my assumptions when interaction with people, does not mean I'm going to stick to them no matter what, as they will grow and change through talking / interaction. Not everyone.
Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » "On the other hand it is a little curious to get rid of the team that is uniquely expert in making Fable, and then try and make Fable. Fable is a weird game, and a tough one to deconstruct for a new team. That said, the team in question is very talented, and I'm sure they'll do a fantastic job." From the article. Microsoft does this often. It has gone well precisely once, and that was debatable. My hot take here is therefore 'RIP Fable'. Im not even trying to talk about fable i was just suing it as an example lmao. Im guessing the game was close to your heart when you were younger? You guess a lot. If you haven't realized by now, I study games. I study them very hard. I ask that you try to consider that when talking to me, if possible. It may help you to not make unnecessary assumptions about my feelings or reasonings. Assuming you care, that is. Have you played fable, what ones did you play. Did you enjoy the gameplay, did your enjoy the story. Were you younger when you played the game, or did you only play it later? Everyone makes assumptions in appearance, in emotion, in words. That should not be a surprise, we have our thoughts with out outlook. Through disccusion things become more clear. So i will still have my assumptions when interaction with people, does not mean I'm going to stick to them no matter what, as they will grow and change through talking / interaction. Not everyone. Im more curious about the first question about fable. *small chance not everyone but it be a very very rare case. When you look at someone their personality, what they are wearing, how they act, how they speak. For your mind to have 0 thoughts on people you would have to be a bit broken. First impression aren't everything but they mean a lot, and also why they are weighed heavily on business level interactions, someone could see you and already judge they might not like you.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » "On the other hand it is a little curious to get rid of the team that is uniquely expert in making Fable, and then try and make Fable. Fable is a weird game, and a tough one to deconstruct for a new team. That said, the team in question is very talented, and I'm sure they'll do a fantastic job." From the article. Microsoft does this often. It has gone well precisely once, and that was debatable. My hot take here is therefore 'RIP Fable'. Im not even trying to talk about fable i was just suing it as an example lmao. Im guessing the game was close to your heart when you were younger? You guess a lot. If you haven't realized by now, I study games. I study them very hard. I ask that you try to consider that when talking to me, if possible. It may help you to not make unnecessary assumptions about my feelings or reasonings. Assuming you care, that is. Have you played fable, what ones did you play. Did you enjoy the gameplay, did your enjoy the story. Were you younger when you played the game, or did you only play it later? Everyone makes assumptions in appearance, in emotion, in words. That should not be a surprise, we have our thoughts with out outlook. Through disccusion things become more clear. So i will still have my assumptions when interaction with people, does not mean I'm going to stick to them no matter what, as they will grow and change through talking / interaction. Not everyone. Im more curious about the first question about fable. *small chance not everyone but it be a very very rare case. When you look at someone their personality, what they are wearing, how they act, how they speak. For your mind to have 0 thoughts on people you would have to be a bit broken. First impression aren't everything but they mean a lot, and also why they are weighed heavily on business level interactions, someone could see you and already judge they might not like you. You've already managed to indicate to me that even beginning to have this conversation will just lead to you jumping to conclusions at nearly everything I say and me needing to clarify it over and over which isn't my vibe for today. Therefore this post is backhanded 'courtesy', to let you know that I'm not going to continue, nor answer your question (the latter being entirely because I'm spiteful and I get easily irritated by your way of interacting). Mu.
mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The issue with what want is the rewards. Not only is there no risk in the rewards but more importantly, by being easier to acquire (because of the decreased risk), It devalues all the rewards in the world, especially those with less power and/or value. Pvp has no rewards on it's own. All the rewards from it come from what you choose to fight over so by devaluing the rewards from the world, you are devaluing the PVP. To be honest, I disagree with your entire premise here. The value of any reward in the game is directly tied to the time spent to get it including any PvP, not just on the PvP. I'm not sure what you mean. You seem to be implying that the more time it takes to get something, the more value it has which is false. Yes, more valuable things usually take longer to acquire but the more time it takes to acquire something doesn't increase it's value. If i auto-attack a boss to death, it's not going to drop more valuable loot because i took longer to kill it. While this is true, it is also true that if I fight you for a boss, it isnt going to drop better gear. It may be that if I fight you for it, you dont get any gear and I do, but if you just auto attack a boss you wont get any either. Again, time is the only thing players put in to an MMO, this is the baseline. You need to put time in to getting geared up, time in to learning your class, your role in a raid, and the encounter itself, then you can spend time working to kill the encounter. If I am working on an open world encounter and you are trying to stop me, you are spending your time in order to prevent me getting the rewards I was after by spending my time on that boss. If I go out harvesting and you attack me, you are risking your time via PvP and potential corruption in order to take the results of the time I spent harvesting. Spending time on something isnt always a guarantee, but time is the only thing we have to spend. If I take something from you in PvP, you have three options to get it back. Spend time fighting me for it, spend time earning gold to buy it, or spend time to get a new one. It literally all comes down to spending time. That doesnt mean we can increase our rewards for time spent by working slowly, all that amounts to is an inefficient use of time. Yes but you kind of jumped past my point in my original reply. As you pointed out, PvP can add time to an encounter which is something you don't have to worry about in an instance. This means the rewards from instances are easier to get when compared to open-world items so people are going to go after the instanced rewards and ignore any rewards in the world that are as good or less powerful than them. Not good if there are a few pieces of instanced content that invalidate almost everything in the world.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The issue with what want is the rewards. Not only is there no risk in the rewards but more importantly, by being easier to acquire (because of the decreased risk), It devalues all the rewards in the world, especially those with less power and/or value. Pvp has no rewards on it's own. All the rewards from it come from what you choose to fight over so by devaluing the rewards from the world, you are devaluing the PVP. To be honest, I disagree with your entire premise here. The value of any reward in the game is directly tied to the time spent to get it including any PvP, not just on the PvP. I'm not sure what you mean. You seem to be implying that the more time it takes to get something, the more value it has which is false. Yes, more valuable things usually take longer to acquire but the more time it takes to acquire something doesn't increase it's value. If i auto-attack a boss to death, it's not going to drop more valuable loot because i took longer to kill it. While this is true, it is also true that if I fight you for a boss, it isnt going to drop better gear. It may be that if I fight you for it, you dont get any gear and I do, but if you just auto attack a boss you wont get any either. Again, time is the only thing players put in to an MMO, this is the baseline. You need to put time in to getting geared up, time in to learning your class, your role in a raid, and the encounter itself, then you can spend time working to kill the encounter. If I am working on an open world encounter and you are trying to stop me, you are spending your time in order to prevent me getting the rewards I was after by spending my time on that boss. If I go out harvesting and you attack me, you are risking your time via PvP and potential corruption in order to take the results of the time I spent harvesting. Spending time on something isnt always a guarantee, but time is the only thing we have to spend. If I take something from you in PvP, you have three options to get it back. Spend time fighting me for it, spend time earning gold to buy it, or spend time to get a new one. It literally all comes down to spending time. That doesnt mean we can increase our rewards for time spent by working slowly, all that amounts to is an inefficient use of time.
mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The issue with what want is the rewards. Not only is there no risk in the rewards but more importantly, by being easier to acquire (because of the decreased risk), It devalues all the rewards in the world, especially those with less power and/or value. Pvp has no rewards on it's own. All the rewards from it come from what you choose to fight over so by devaluing the rewards from the world, you are devaluing the PVP. To be honest, I disagree with your entire premise here. The value of any reward in the game is directly tied to the time spent to get it including any PvP, not just on the PvP. I'm not sure what you mean. You seem to be implying that the more time it takes to get something, the more value it has which is false. Yes, more valuable things usually take longer to acquire but the more time it takes to acquire something doesn't increase it's value. If i auto-attack a boss to death, it's not going to drop more valuable loot because i took longer to kill it.
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The issue with what want is the rewards. Not only is there no risk in the rewards but more importantly, by being easier to acquire (because of the decreased risk), It devalues all the rewards in the world, especially those with less power and/or value. Pvp has no rewards on it's own. All the rewards from it come from what you choose to fight over so by devaluing the rewards from the world, you are devaluing the PVP. To be honest, I disagree with your entire premise here. The value of any reward in the game is directly tied to the time spent to get it including any PvP, not just on the PvP.
mcstackerson wrote: » The issue with what want is the rewards. Not only is there no risk in the rewards but more importantly, by being easier to acquire (because of the decreased risk), It devalues all the rewards in the world, especially those with less power and/or value. Pvp has no rewards on it's own. All the rewards from it come from what you choose to fight over so by devaluing the rewards from the world, you are devaluing the PVP.
Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » "On the other hand it is a little curious to get rid of the team that is uniquely expert in making Fable, and then try and make Fable. Fable is a weird game, and a tough one to deconstruct for a new team. That said, the team in question is very talented, and I'm sure they'll do a fantastic job." From the article. Microsoft does this often. It has gone well precisely once, and that was debatable. My hot take here is therefore 'RIP Fable'. Im not even trying to talk about fable i was just suing it as an example lmao. Im guessing the game was close to your heart when you were younger? You guess a lot. If you haven't realized by now, I study games. I study them very hard. I ask that you try to consider that when talking to me, if possible. It may help you to not make unnecessary assumptions about my feelings or reasonings. Assuming you care, that is. Have you played fable, what ones did you play. Did you enjoy the gameplay, did your enjoy the story. Were you younger when you played the game, or did you only play it later? Everyone makes assumptions in appearance, in emotion, in words. That should not be a surprise, we have our thoughts with out outlook. Through disccusion things become more clear. So i will still have my assumptions when interaction with people, does not mean I'm going to stick to them no matter what, as they will grow and change through talking / interaction. Not everyone. Im more curious about the first question about fable. *small chance not everyone but it be a very very rare case. When you look at someone their personality, what they are wearing, how they act, how they speak. For your mind to have 0 thoughts on people you would have to be a bit broken. First impression aren't everything but they mean a lot, and also why they are weighed heavily on business level interactions, someone could see you and already judge they might not like you. You've already managed to indicate to me that even beginning to have this conversation will just lead to you jumping to conclusions at nearly everything I say
Noaani wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » Mag7spy wrote: » Azherae wrote: » "On the other hand it is a little curious to get rid of the team that is uniquely expert in making Fable, and then try and make Fable. Fable is a weird game, and a tough one to deconstruct for a new team. That said, the team in question is very talented, and I'm sure they'll do a fantastic job." From the article. Microsoft does this often. It has gone well precisely once, and that was debatable. My hot take here is therefore 'RIP Fable'. Im not even trying to talk about fable i was just suing it as an example lmao. Im guessing the game was close to your heart when you were younger? You guess a lot. If you haven't realized by now, I study games. I study them very hard. I ask that you try to consider that when talking to me, if possible. It may help you to not make unnecessary assumptions about my feelings or reasonings. Assuming you care, that is. Have you played fable, what ones did you play. Did you enjoy the gameplay, did your enjoy the story. Were you younger when you played the game, or did you only play it later? Everyone makes assumptions in appearance, in emotion, in words. That should not be a surprise, we have our thoughts with out outlook. Through disccusion things become more clear. So i will still have my assumptions when interaction with people, does not mean I'm going to stick to them no matter what, as they will grow and change through talking / interaction. Not everyone. Im more curious about the first question about fable. *small chance not everyone but it be a very very rare case. When you look at someone their personality, what they are wearing, how they act, how they speak. For your mind to have 0 thoughts on people you would have to be a bit broken. First impression aren't everything but they mean a lot, and also why they are weighed heavily on business level interactions, someone could see you and already judge they might not like you. You've already managed to indicate to me that even beginning to have this conversation will just lead to you jumping to conclusions at nearly everything I say Surely not Mag! He would never do that...
Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » Noaani wrote: » mcstackerson wrote: » The issue with what want is the rewards. Not only is there no risk in the rewards but more importantly, by being easier to acquire (because of the decreased risk), It devalues all the rewards in the world, especially those with less power and/or value. Pvp has no rewards on it's own. All the rewards from it come from what you choose to fight over so by devaluing the rewards from the world, you are devaluing the PVP. To be honest, I disagree with your entire premise here. The value of any reward in the game is directly tied to the time spent to get it including any PvP, not just on the PvP. I'm not sure what you mean. You seem to be implying that the more time it takes to get something, the more value it has which is false. Yes, more valuable things usually take longer to acquire but the more time it takes to acquire something doesn't increase it's value. If i auto-attack a boss to death, it's not going to drop more valuable loot because i took longer to kill it. While this is true, it is also true that if I fight you for a boss, it isnt going to drop better gear. It may be that if I fight you for it, you dont get any gear and I do, but if you just auto attack a boss you wont get any either. Again, time is the only thing players put in to an MMO, this is the baseline. You need to put time in to getting geared up, time in to learning your class, your role in a raid, and the encounter itself, then you can spend time working to kill the encounter. If I am working on an open world encounter and you are trying to stop me, you are spending your time in order to prevent me getting the rewards I was after by spending my time on that boss. If I go out harvesting and you attack me, you are risking your time via PvP and potential corruption in order to take the results of the time I spent harvesting. Spending time on something isnt always a guarantee, but time is the only thing we have to spend. If I take something from you in PvP, you have three options to get it back. Spend time fighting me for it, spend time earning gold to buy it, or spend time to get a new one. It literally all comes down to spending time. That doesnt mean we can increase our rewards for time spent by working slowly, all that amounts to is an inefficient use of time. Yes but you kind of jumped past my point in my original reply. As you pointed out, PvP can add time to an encounter which is something you don't have to worry about in an instance. This means the rewards from instances are easier to get when compared to open-world items so people are going to go after the instanced rewards and ignore any rewards in the world that are as good or less powerful than them. Not good if there are a few pieces of instanced content that invalidate almost everything in the world. Right, so in the past I have gone incredibly in depth on how I would add instanced raid content to Ashes. I've done this several times, going back several times. I assumed you'd read that, obviously not. Two key points to make. First, best in slot items in Ashes (or the components to make them) need to come from open world encounters, ideally encounters in battlegrounds so players hav e no need to worry about corruption. Thus, if a guild wants best in slot items, they need to learn how to compete to get them. You cant learn how to do this in an instance, so if all you do is instanced content, you are opting out of the best gear in the game. Second, while P vP does not happen within the I stance, I have always said it needs to be a part of the equation. When you consider players logging on for the nights raidng up until the guild has an equitable item, there are plenty of other opportunities to add PvP that arent just the actual fight. My preferred method for this is for the encounter to drop components that then need to be transported via the caravan system. This then puts the guild at risk of losing those components ( and thus the fruits of the thousands of combined hours put in) to anyone organized enough to take it. Just to add to that, my suggestion also contains the notion that once a raid mob like this is killed (an ev en I expect to happen 3 or 4 times a week at the absolute most), there is a server wide announcement of the fact. So basically, force the guild to put their loot in a slow moving, vulnerable caravan, and then tell the whole server that it's happening. Yeah, low risk.
